written earlier, in the park

if i were to die now, my death poem-

cool wind caress
grasshopper song ever continuous
a generator shut off,
a truck started.


I think I see the natural world as real, authentic, & those parts of the world artificial as inauthentic.  At least it is a semblance of consistent definition, ut artificial is, after all, just a word.  If I look at the real things (what is a word but some physical movements and sound to abstract that real thing into a commonly agreed upon sound?) concrete, these buildings, the playground are just reconstituted items.  They are all things that priorly existed with their forms remolded by man's mind and effort.  My body is a large amount of eggs, cereal, dirt, water, and other things reformed, though not necessarily by my concerted thought and effort.  Therefore might man's efforts be no less authentic than a growing plant?  Although I can understand the logic of this last statement, I don't ever think i'll accept it in my heart.

the buddhist/existentialist conflict:
What is, is.  There is nothing else.
     But, because things 'are' does not mean (in existentialism) that I must accept them as the ultimate form possible (or even as a desireable, as praise-worthy, or even as functional [many conflicts here: one should note & respect past actors that have helped create today, of which there are billions upon billions , & we will always be naive in this appreciation]).  A strong awareness of possibilities, of capability frees one to better interpret the direction of peoples' & organizations' actions, & gives one a greater possible clout in affecting the future because the individual cna act wit hgreater clarity of direction in their own endeavors.  The world is, & I'm pleased or more likely displeased by this or that, & the world could be THIS!

I've been listening to the learning series in my car, or to silence and the day around me.  A few things that have stuck with me:
Hiedigger's (sp?) three approaches to the world:
Aesthetic- pleasure seeking.
Ethical-- people geared toward developing their ethics/morals.
religious--- self explanatory.

also, psychologist Mark (right first name?) Cohlberg's work on Morals.  There are:
--heteronomous actors
--autonomous actors
...when it comes to one's definitions within morality.  Heteronomous actors consider the opinions of others to be very important when forming one's own moral sensitivity.  Autonomous actors oppose this stance on principle & their moral sense is entirely based on their own epistemology & incubated moral senses.

This dichotomy --- & the notion of one individual's moral sense requiring that they alone act, despite no one else acting morally by the same ethics (autonomy)---  makes me think of a saying that I cannot place-- I wish I could remember its source.  I want to say it was my aunt Becca but I cannot be certain.  The saying is that the philosophy of 100 years ago is the mindset of today.  This comes to mind because in my constant musings about popular approaches to life & different individuals' life philosophies , I've tried to cultivate an awareness of that dichotomy but I've never given it such a concise definition --- heteronomous and autonomous.

I think that in popular methods today of personal exhibition, in personal interactions with others, the autonomous worldview is a proclaimed & sought for ideal.  This speaking-of, personality-projection of autonomy is coupled with a mostly heteronomous set of morals, albeit a heteronomy of smaller groups than perhaps Socrates & the 'polis.'

I've said to myself recently that I want to meet those people of the ethical sort.  As in the Kerouac quote, those people that burn, burn, burn... without ever saying a commonplace thing...
I want to meet those people autonomous (& truly, not just extoling the virtues of autonomy yet not making it real).

I want to find others that are constantly panning the river, for whatever is to be found.